Thursday, October 27, 2005

Confronting the Enemy

 
President Bush made an excellent speech on Tuesday at Bolling Air Force Base, outlining the scope and rationale of the war on terror — which he once again identified as a struggle against “Islamo-fascism:”
     Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it is called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam.
Mr. President, are you sure that’s true?

There is, of course, no way of knowing whether Mr. Bush believes this. Given the political exigencies, it is necessary for him to say it. His statement does, however, beg the central question of our time:

Does violent jihad represent the essence of the religion of Islam?

And the corollary:

Is the existence of the “moderate Muslim” possible?

I don’t pretend to be able to answer these questions, nor do I think it is possible to answer them yet. But they should be uppermost in our minds as we watch current political events unfolding across the world, and especially those unfolding across the bloody littorals of Islam.

The central problem is that Islam is more than a religion. It is a blueprint for political action, one whose core text requires the adherent to be violent in the pursuit of political goals. In this respect Muslims bear more resemblance to Communists than they do to Presbyterians.

But there are peaceable Muslims. The ones I know personally look and act like ordinary Americans. The women don’t wear the hijab, and the girls go to school and act like any other American kids.

But these Muslims are also not particularly observant; they don’t pray five times a day or visit the mosque very often. They are roughly equivalent to “lapsed Catholics.”

So I am still left with the open question:

Will the truly observant Muslim always engage in or support violent jihad?

A lively discussion emerged in the comments section of my post yesterday (I recommend the entire thread, which is full of thoughtful and vehement argument by a variety of people). In response to some of the more bellicose commenters, Cato said this:
     Do you really think all billion muslims hate the west that implacably? Do you think there is any practical program that will lead to the elimination (or forcible conversion) of all the planet’s muslims?
I often wonder where the logic of “all Islam is out to get us so we had better do something about it” leads.
So where does it lead? If the enemy is in our midst, but not actively pursuing violence at the moment, what do we do? And are all Muslims our enemies?

We know that some of them are, and it is a reasonable assumption there are some among us who are even now planning to harm us. But is the proper response to declare that all Muslims are our enemies?

If all Muslims are in fact our enemies, then we will have to take concrete action. The first step would be to require them all to register with the government so that they could be monitored. Next they would have to be disarmed. Then we would need to require them to display some sign so that we could recognize them as the enemy, say a yellow crescent and star sewn onto their outer clothing. The next step would be to gather them all together in secure camps removed from the rest of the populace, so that they could do us no harm. Then…

Wait a minute. We’ve seen that road before, and we’re not going to follow it.

The civil liberties accorded citizens of this country protect people from being targeted simply for their beliefs or membership in a particular group. Yet members of a particular group are plotting to do the country harm by murder, mayhem, and levying insurrection. If they succeed in their diabolical plans and unleash a devastating attack within our borders, people may well take the law into their own hands and civil liberties will be thrown out the window.

I don’t buy the idea that we should just be quiet and let domestic law enforcement do its job. I’m certain that it has indeed interdicted many terrorist attacks since 9/11, but Able Danger and Annie Jacobsen’s experience on Flight 327 and the Jamaat ul-Fuqra compounds and the farce that masquerades as airport security have all convinced me that incompetence rages throughout the system.

So what can be done?

First and foremost is to propagate as much information as possible. Turn over every rock. Open all the closet doors and turn on the lights. Bust open all the rotten stumps so we can see the termites inside. Spread the word, because that is what the blogosphere is for.

But let’s be sure we distinguish fact from speculation and rumor. And above all, remember that incitement to violence is the enemy’s specialty, not ours.

The second tactic is political. We are not going to be able to control the mujahideen in our midst if we don’t shrug off all the politically correct nonsense that hobbles us, and also control our borders. The current administration seems to have no will to do either of these things, and the next administration, no matter which party takes office, is unlikely to do any better.

Therefore we’re going to have to throw out an awful lot of rascals, and elect people who will shake the entrenched bureaucracy until its back teeth rattle.

Any other ideas out there? This is an open forum. Somewhere between the extremes of “Islam is a religion of peace” and “nuke the ragheads” is a course of action which will protect American citizens and also secure their liberties. I invite you to help me find it.

Calling all armchair generals! Gather at the Gates and make yourselves heard!


UPDATE: Best comment so far, by peggy:

I have been saying for a long time that the solution to the problem that islam poses is a simple one if we only have the courage and vision to pursue it relentlessly.

Just tell the truth about it.

The truth is our greatest weapon. We should only resort to other means if our free speech to protest against islam were threatened by the powers that be and then it is our right as citizens to fight those powers. The average muslim person should never have to worry about our intentions towards their persons or families or property or businesses or prayer centers as long they abide by the laws of our land.

If we keep to the high ground, we should with time be able to turn things around. The first idea we must get across with meticulous care is this: It is possible to oppose islam without bearing hatred towards all those who believe it and everyone should be able to freely and openly dispute the ideas and beliefs of others by right as long as they dont call for violence against the other group in an indiscriminate way that would hurt peaceable folks.

A big problem with islam and muslims is that they do not understand this. They equate open rejection of their beliefs as hatred and bigotry mainly because their own leaders encourage them to do so by their example. But coming as they do from their original environment which is devoid of the hurly-burly of true democracy and liberty, they are easily mislead to shut their ears to the "bigots" who dislike all muslims and are encouraged to dismiss all criticism of their religion as ignorant. If we happen to think that islam is the worst idea for a religion there ever was but have no inclination to hate those who believe in it then we have to distinguish ourselves from the true haters by our conduct, by our charity and hospitality towards all.

47 comments:

wildiris said...

I posted this awhile back at Dr. Sanity’s. But I think it might be worth reposting…

As part of a recent discussion with some members at my church, I heard, what strikes me, as the most definitive observation regarding the question, “whether Islam is or is not a religion of peace”, I have ever run across. I don’t recall seeing this observation articulated on the web before, so for the benefit of those like me who have not heard it, I thought I should share it with everybody and get people’s comments in return.

The discussion went through many of the usual pro/con talking points that we’ve seen over and over again posted here on the web. Then…

(Apologist for Islam) Islam is really a peaceful religion; it’s just that it has been hijacked by a radical and violent element.

(Skeptical Listener) No! The problem with Islam isn’t that it has been hijacked; the problem is that there is something about Islam that makes it so easy to be hijacked by such radical and violent elements.

(Observation 1) Every society has its share of violent, misogynistic, hurtful and etc. people, a number of who will always try and bend their religion to serve as a cover, excuse or justification for their behavior. As a result, all religions have had their fringe cults and sects that have acted out in violent and/or other anti-social ways; that’s just a sad fact of human nature. But Islam, of all of the world’s major religions, seems to be the one most troubled by this problem, while at the same time; the more peaceful (moderate) element in the religion of Islam is seemingly powerless to stop this co-opting from happening.

(Observation 2) It doesn’t matter what verses of the Bible or Koran one chooses to emphasize, or how one may try to interpret them. The ultimate arbiter of what is or what is not a proper Christian or Muslim response is the lives and works of Jesus or Mohammed themselves. Jesus was above all, a man of peace, while Mohammed was anything but a man of peace.

A Christian may try to use scripture to justify or incite others to violence, but because Jesus himself would not have acted in that way, their words will never attract more than a handful of listeners.

But it is the converse that is true for Islam. While there may be many within the Muslim religion that want to live peacefully with their neighbors, Mohammed himself did not live that way. As a result, the voices of the “moderates” carry no weight with the community of Islam as a whole. After all, how can one Muslim, with any authority, tell another not to do what Mohammed himself did do? It’s not that the moderates can’t or won’t speak out against the radical element, it’s that the prophet Mohammed, by the example of his own life, left them with no voice to speak out with.

(Conclusion) That’s why Islam is not, never was or can ever be trusted to be a “religion of peace”. Because Mohammed himself was not a peaceful man and by the example of his own life, he has left the door wide open for the more violent element in any community or society, in which Islam is the dominant religion, to turn Islam into a tool to justify their violent actions against others.

In other words, Islam, as a religion, can’t be any more “peaceful” than, as a man, Mohammed was himself.

Gryffilion said...

"I don’t buy the idea that we should just be quiet and let domestic law enforcement do its job."

The only road that really opens up is vigilante justice and the re-institution of local militias to deal with problems in their midst. I'm not convinced the Feds and the Spooks will do any better handling this than they did, say, with Ruby Ridge or the Branch Davidian compound. Personally, I think we're lucky there haven't been more fundamental domestic attacks, given the track record of the domestic agencies ensuring our "safety."

My roommate and I watched "The Siege" the other night. It was kind of ironic, watching it in the aftermath of September 11th. Apart from all the things that are wrong with its depicted scenario, one line stuck out to me: "The thing is, being a Palestinian in this day and age isn't just a nationality, it's a profession." I think the same thing might now go for being a Muslim. If the readership intelligentsia on here is indeed correct (and their comments are well-reasoned enough to believe they are), that Islam is sort of a built-in program for tendencies towards violent and radical action, then perhaps it isn't limited to just the Palestinians anymore.

I do not fear all Muslims. I do not hate al Muslims. What I fear is the violent root of their religion.The fact that after the other two main religions, Christianity and Judaism, left behind their violent roots approximately 600 and perhaps 2000 years ago (respectively), while Islam continues to wage a mainstream war with some popular support among the Muslim world points to its inability both to adapt to a modern world and to leave behind the violence of its conception.

God help us all. No choice we make seems like it would work. But what can men do when faced with the destruction of all that they hold dear?

Gryffilion said...

I would add a quote from Aragorn to the end of my last comment:

"By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!"

bordergal said...

Several ideas come immediately to mind:

A PAC to rival CAIR. With proper funding, I can envision a nice TV ad with the voice of Ibrahim Hooper talking about wanting Sharia Law to supercede the Constitution, on TV stations all across the US. Add in the clips of the Islamic Thinkers Society in NYC.

Pressure Congress to outlaw all Saudi funding of mosques, etc. in the US.

Pressure Congress to adopt stricter standards for R1 Religious Visas.

Address the issue of Muslim immigration.

Set up a venue in each state, and invite people like Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch to speak.

Start compiling a map/list of potential extremist problem sites, strange happenings, etc in the US, something like a national neighborhood watch. Comprehensive information is powerful, witness the impressive ROP website list of attacks.

I haven't thought this one through, but we need to somehow start pressuring US Muslims to start speaking out publically against Islamic imperialism. They can't be allowed to sit comfortably on the sidelines anymore.

American Crusader said...

I've been trying to think of some way to answer your questions. It's ridiculous to think that every Muslim wants to overthrow the United States and its also ridiculous to let your guard down because there are many who would like nothing more. Where do you draw the line? Do we start with registrations, internment camps, surveillance or even expulsions? As Americans we need to keep our values but at the same time not let our freedoms be used against us. Tough times.

Clouse said...

Gryfillion said:

"...the other two main religions, Christianity and Judaism, left behind their violent roots approximately 600 and perhaps 2000 years ago (respectively)"

The violence of Old Testament Judaism, if you are referring to the Lord's command to Joshua to utterly destroy the inhabitants of Caanan, was not an integral, perpetual part of Judaism, but was commanded by God because of the complete moral wickedness of the Caananites - it was Divine judgment executed by Israel. Their normal state was to be at peace with surrounding nations (e.g. Lebanon), and to treat strangers in their midst kindly: "thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" Exodus 23:9.

As for Christianity, Christ expounded the Kingdom of Heaven as a spiritual kingdom, not an earthly, political kingdom. No one could be coerced into the Kingdom of Heaven - entry was by the new birth only, brought about by the Holy Spirit and received by faith. Though this teaching has been perverted in the past by those in power in the "Church," who wished to coerce others, it was never a legitimate thing to do. The Kingdom was to be advanced only through spiritual means, by the preaching of the Gospel and the attendant calling of the Holy Spirit.

The Koran, on the other hand, advocates the spread of Islam by both persuasion and by the sword. As far as I can see, it's built into the religion and cannot be removed without destroying it.

Baron Bodissey said...

Crusader -- concerning "expulsions": there remains the significant problem that any number of potential terrorists are American citizens, and many of those native-born.

wilburjim said...

wildiris- your post made me think of the popular bracelet- WWJD.

WWMD- What would muhammad do?

peggy said...

I have been saying for a long time that the solution to the problem that islam poses is a simple one if we only have the courage and vision to pursue it relentlessly.

Just tell the truth about it.

The truth is our greatest weapon. We should only resort to other means if our free speech to protest against islam were threatened by the powers that be and then it is our right as citizens to fight those powers. The average muslim person should never have to worry about our intentions towards their persons or families or property or businesses or prayer centers as long they abide by the laws of our land.

If we keep to the high ground, we should with time be able to turn things around. The first idea we must get across with meticulous care is this: It is possible to oppose islam without bearing hatred towards all those who believe it and everyone should be able to freely and openly dispute the ideas and beliefs of others by right as long as they dont call for violence against the other group in an indiscriminate way that would hurt peaceable folks.

A big problem with islam and muslims is that they do not understand this. They equate open rejection of their beliefs as hatred and bigotry mainly because their own leaders encourage them to do so by their example. But coming as they do from their original environment which is devoid of the hurly-burly of true democracy and liberty, they are easily mislead to shut their ears to the "bigots" who dislike all muslims and are encouraged to dismiss all criticism of their religion as ignorant. If we happen to think that islam is the worst idea for a religion there ever was but have no inclination to hate those who believe in it then we have to distinguish ourselves from the true haters by our conduct, by our charity and hospitality towards all.

It will eventually become clear to any decent person which of the two sides has the high ground and these will either join us or reform their own side to emulate our behavior. At that point a real civilized debate can take place which I am sure would be decided in favor of the West and in favor of the Christian faith from which all true liberty on this earth has sprung.

I have no fear of islam being able to win the battle of ideas once it ceases its current childish and violent tactics. It is easy to see which side has formed a successful civilization from its internal resources and which side will have to be forced by pressure from without to behave in a civilized manner.

Mussolini said...

I kind of got excited with the "nuke the ragheads" remark.....

In consideration of the entrenchment of the speech-killing, idea-sharing disease that is political correctness, there can only be one plausible path to recognition of the enemy:

More vicious attacks, and more bloody deaths of innocent Americans.

We incrementalize everything. We have a graduated scale for taxes, welfare, pay, promotions, political advance, federal policy change, penalties, criminal punishment.... That incrementalization translates into every aspect of society. However, each incremental change tends to be of less substantial effect than the previous.

(ahem) In more easily understood terms: It takes more of something, each time, to effect as large a change as before.

The next 5,000 casualty attack will be horrible and awful and tragic - but will not last as long as the effect on the national psyche after 9/11 nor prove as inclusive in the support results for action.

After 9/11 we had 80% of the American citizenry demanding we obliterate "the bastards that did this to us." After 9/11 Part 2, the percentage will be 70% or less.

For the public to be once again in 80% accord would be to see a 9/11 Part 2 where 10,000+ people die.

End result, many more attacks, many more deaths, with small incremental changes to where we approach not only a public concensus to act, but a congressional, executive, and a supporting judicial approach to the war. The higher you go in government, the longer it takes to cure the PC disease.

Anything less than more deaths allows the anti-war protestors to push for appeasement.

The latter option is not acceptable. REASONABLE men can negotiate. If we had a spat with France right now, and shots were fired, and men died (because Bush lied or whatever stupidity you want to blame it on), and both countries were skirmishing and sinking ships and downing planes, our diplomats could reason out a truce between us so we could figure out a way to buy French cheese and they could stomach another McDonalds in Paris.

But you cannot REASON with Islamofascism. Appeasement means give in to the Qu'ranic demands: convert to Islam, serve in dhimmitude, or die by beheading.

So appeasement can never be allowed to win in this War on Islamofascism. Which means, many many more deaths of American innocents.

Papa Bear said...

I recall a prior group with a hateful ideology that had a very large membership in the US decades ago: the KKK

Perhaps if the truth is put out there about an extremist ideology that calls itself a religion, people will be as reluctant to be seen associating with it, or spreading its ideology, as they would to have their co-workers discover Klan membership

Old School said...

After lengthy debates with my friends and co-workers who are almost all still clinging to the idea/hope that all religions are equal in their good qualities, I have found that the best way to get them to open their eyes to the clear reality of where Islam is now are the following:

1) Alway's root your criticism within your capital L liberal values ie, "As a modern person who believes in the equality of women and the right of religious assembly, I do have a problem with, for example, a culture that does not allow churches or synagogues to be built or adherants of other religions to set foot in its holiest sites."

2) Always refer to "at this period in history." Muslims often counter criticisms of slavery and or child brides in Islam with the observation that their prophet was in fact ahead of his times and brought advanced culture to his neighbors. Ok, so we agree in progress and it is clear to everyone, especially hijackers of airplanes, that technology represents an advance and German Universities are better places to be trained than Middle Eastern ones. Now, what does the future hold for all of us humans?

3) Reference the Soviets not Nazis. Everyone closes their ears when the ad hitlerum argument is used, and yes, we didn't hate Russians, we hated communism.

Just my advice to my fellow humanists of all religious origin who feel that if the good people don't fight this one, the bad certainly will.

quark2 said...

I'll read the rest of the comments after I post, so I don't forget what I want to communicate.
There are peaceful moslims. In the main, they are peaceful, secularist and law abiding where ever they live.
Among them live the enemy, using these peace folks as a shield and cover. They are usually careful to not expose themselves even to their neighbours.
The problem with islam is being able to discern the friend from the enemy.
Here is where it is the responsiblity of the moslims to police themselves and be law abiding by turning in those among them with the intent of breaking our laws.
This should already be in place, and sadly I don't think much of this is happening yet.
It is with apprehension that I see our moslims being taken down in this country whether they are innocent or complicit if we suffer another bad attack.
As posted above, telling the truth, shining the light in dark places and straight line communications should be our first line weapons of choice against those who use islam as their
reason for total control globally.

Old School said...

...and I forgot to add the most important part to the first observation. Always be HONEST, that you do have a problem with Islam for the reasons stated. If the person you are talking to is reluctant to critique Islam because they are a multi culti type, than they cannot condone a society which beats children to death for eating a sanwich on Ramadan, wraps women from head to to and hates gays. These are things that it is ok to be against and it doesn't make you a "phobe," rather a rational critic.

Mussolini said...

On the subject of American civil liberties...

I keep seeing discussions where, with hand-wringing concern, people are worrying about how to apply the war while "respecting" civil rights.

Can we slam on the brakes for a moment with enough force to throw anyone without seatbelts through the windshield? (...cloud of tire smoke...)

We are at war. War.

"Butbutbut!"

No "butts." War is the most destructive civil element there is. Why are we at war? Because the ENEMY wants to strip away your very first American God-given right: LIFE.

Nothing tramples rights more than war. Nothing is more destructive than getting blown up by the enemy and having your body parts scattered over a three-block area. When they have to scrape you up with a stick and a spoon, I don't believe there will be much concern for YOUR civil rights.

You cannot expect the enemy to "respect" your "civil rights." IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Likewise, in the matter of life or death, extraordinary measures are taken to ensure the bad guy dies, and not the innocent.

In the past, this necessity of making sure the innocent lived and the bad guy died involved massive "trampling" of civil rights.

During the Civil War, the Union enforced martial law with a suspension of all kinds of rights and forced the issue at bayonet point and muzzle of their muskets - on the citizenry of northern cities.

Now, who here can point out to me the lasting effects of "shredding the constitution" that happened in New York during the Civil War?

With government rationing, seizing materials, gold and property during previous wars, who here can point to the lasting effects of those horrible "shreddings" of the constitution where civil rights meant nothing?

We have an elected government of citizens, not nobility. We have an army of volunteer citizens, not nobility. Those two elements usually conbine to make a potent force. But being that those two elements are made up of vounteers or elected citizens, those "shreddings" of the constitution were only ever temporary. Men and women realized extraordinary measures were needed to win and temporarily suspended the rights we enjoy. We applied our "win" strategy, won the wars, and then went back to peacetime enjoyment of our civil rights.

Attempting to maintain an aspect of peacetime conditions in a time of war where the enemy even wants to shoot our children in the back (like here), is not only irresponsibly defeatist, but STUPID. It not only does not work (stops us from winning), but helps the enemy to kill us.

We need to wake up to the fact that going to war means suspending our "civil rights" and that the constitution is going to be "shredded." We can comfort ourselves that our citizen volunteers and elected citizens will restore those rights and "tape" the constitution back as good as new after we've kicked the enemy's ass.

For all the hand-wringing about profiling and deportations and internment camps, try reading a solid analysis of the Reconstruction after the Civil War. Then come back and tell me that deporting is so horrible comapred to the absolute tyranny, abrogation of the Bill of Rights, and nullity of the constitution that the people of the South suffered under for YEARS. Being forced to vote a certain way or not being admitted back into the union as citizens? Doesn't that sound like one of the most horrifying crimes that can be perpetrated on a supposedly "free" citizenry?

I'll take internment camps any day. FDR was an ass, but he was right to be cautious with the camps.

El Jefe Maximo said...

Given that what you say is correct, I don't see much alternative to the reimposition of a species of at least indirect colonial control over much of the Muslim world, coupled with mass expulsions or detention of dangerous persons within the west.

The main feature would be a type of interdiction or blockade in the form of bans on the movement of persons out of the interdicted countries (i.e. prohibition of passenger air and sea travel), and denial of access to employment, residence and education in the west. Traffic back and forth would be solely financial and commerical. The Muslim world is afforded access to the imports it may need from the west in exchange for access to oil and raw materials, without major movements of population.

Some mechanism would need to be in place to adjudicate requests for individualized exceptions/waivers of the ban.

Allied to this would need to be a propaganda and education effort -- essentially a promise to remove the interdiction/blockade when the Muslim world espouses "civilized values."

All of this administered not by the UN or anything like it, but by a commission directly answerable to the governments of the great powers (i.e. US, Japan, China, India, Europe/(UK seperate?) and probably Brazil).

This whole scheme would permit a substantial degree of liberty to exist outside the interdicted area, and for trade and commerce to go on, but would doubtless take a traumatic shock to the west before imposition of any such thing would be considered. Unfortunately, I suspect that our enemies will in time supply the necessary shock. Establishment of this system would require a major war.

Essentially, it turns the Muslim world, involuntarily, into pre-Meiji Japan, to enter its Meiji stage, probably on a regional basis, as it shows it can.

Lot of holes in this idea, but what else is there ?

Jesse Clark said...

I think it's also important to understand all of Islam. This is not just some great monolithic religion in which all its believers adhere to the same tenets. It is as divided as Chrisitanity or Judaism.

There is more division than just Sunni and Shi'a, and there is more than just the Qur'an. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of Hadith out there. Moderate Muslims accept only a few (by comparison) to the more radical and fundamentalist groups, who accept great numbers of Hadith as accurate.

There is not just one Sahri'a. There are four. Four seperate schools of thought on how to apply Islamic Law. They range from the moderate and quite liberal Hanafi to the radical Hanbali, which states that the Qur'an must be applied without interpretation or question. There is no reason, or 'ijtihad' to be made in discerning the law, as there is in the other three schools. Hanbali is the source of the Wahhabism the so often makes headlines. Yet Hanbali is followed by less than 5% of all Muslims worldwide.

And I haven't even begun to talk about Sufism.

It is important to not see Muslims as homogenous. Yes, there is an extremely violent sect of Islam. Yes, we need to completely annihilate them before they annihilate us. But the moderate Muslims should not be viewed as accessories to their crimes. If we are to defeat our true enemy within Islam, we will need their help.

peggy said...

gryffilion,

re: Aragorn's quote

That is my favorite line from those movies. Powerful. Not concerned with hate for the other but more concerned with of love for the good that could be lost if we refuse to fight.

Whenever I hear that line, I always think of us in our struggle against terrorism. I also think of tiny Israel or of Britian in WWII. I wonder if the Byzantines heard something like it before they went down. Noone is a loser who is willing to perish in a battle of true self defense from the howling forces of darkness. In my book, The Byzantines did not lose.

Our number one job is to fight on the battlefield of ideas. While our soldiers fight in Iraq and around the world our responsibility is to defend ur civilization at home by taking care of our own backyards and getting our own acts together as individuals by doing all that we can in our spheres of influence to expose the lies, tricks and plots of the enemy. The society that stands firm for what is right and true and isnt shy about speaking out for it and which doesnt sink to the level of the enemy will be the one left standing in the end. Of that I have no doubt.

Baron Bodissey said...

FYI -- we just got a visitor here who was searching for "how to make a bomb".

Sigh...

Happens every day, at least several times.

Baron Bodissey said...

Oh, and I forgot to say that this particular searcher was in Zaire.

El Jefe Maximo said...

Re the remark on the Byzantines not losing. Maybe not in the cosmic, eternal sense. But their Empire was cast down, their churches desecrated, their leaders killed, and Constantinople is now Istambul. That isn't winning to me, whatever the merits of the Byzantines and their stand. In 1453, the Byzantines paid in spades for over a century of dithering.

I'll leave the cosmic victories to other folks. War is, so to speak, a mutual adaptation and learning process: one learns from one's enemies, and, of necessity, becomes more like them to defeat them. That's not pretty, just necessary.

Bill's right. We will have to, at least temporarily, put aside things we love and honor to survive. Cosmic victory is God's department. Making our enemies stone, cold, dead, however we have to do it, is ours.

Mussolini said...

I entered "how to make a bomb to blow up bodissey's moustache" but yahoo search came up empty.

Guess I can't go for the stealth laugh.

Heloise said...

The essence of the islamic religion(or way of life as they like to say) is contained in the five pillars of islam:

Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the declaration of faith, "There is no god but allah and mohammed is his prophet.")
The other four pillars are:
Establishment of the daily prayers;
Concern for and almsgiving to the needy(muslims);
Self-purification through fasting; and
The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.

That being stated, we must understand that when the muslim says there is no god but allah, he means all other religions are false - period. And when he says that mohammed is allah's prophet, he means that mohammed is the last and final prophet for all mankind. The muslim knows this is true for it says this in the koran, over and over and over again. All other religions and prophets are inferior and are negated, for the words of the koran are infallible and eternal because they are allah's words.

Okay, so islam is at its core a fundamentalist doctrine that cannot be changed, updated, whatever. Its system of law, the sharia, cannot be changed, only narrowly re-interpreted. If one is a muslim, one must believe in all aspects of islam, religious (prayers, pilgrimage, etc.), political(the sharia, punishment for apostasy, etc.) and cultural(the taking of arab names, veneration of the black stone at mecca, etc.).

As allah is infallible and controls everything in our world,
if a muslim is suffering, it is only because he has strayed from the straight path of allah and mohammed. So we get the phenomena of the "good" muslim becoming the "bad" muslim.

Jihad has been called the sixth pillar of islam. Muslims are expected to convert unbelievers (dawah) by persuasion of the tongue, pen or the sword. There is always a choice. But a muslim must choose one for his dawah or they are not considered a "good" muslim. If the unbelievers do not anwer the call to islam, then they are considered fair game for the sword.

Islam will never cease its violence and criminal tactics as they are enshrined in the koran, and in the sunnah, the examples and pronouncements of mohammed, found in the hadiths (of which there are various versions). Allah calls mohammed the perfect man and says he is to be emulated, so the pattern has been defined and cannot be altered. Thus, pedophilia, rape, theft, terror, torture and murder of innocents is all part of the goody bag the jihadi can use to fulfill his aims.

Mohammed was a brilliant intuitive leader/general/ and he and his companions devised a near perfect closed system of war aginst the rest of humanity.

Although a large percentage of the muslim world is illiterate, I don't believe that education is the answer here for I know muslims with PhD's that want the world to become islamic and for the sharia to be the law of all lands. Rather, I think, only by showing allah is not infallible can we be victorious in keeping our freedom,
our life, our liberty and pursuit of our happiness.

peggy said...

el jefe maximo,

I'm sorry if I wasnt clear by what I meant with the Byzantine remark.

What I was going for is that we shouldnt be afraid of death nor should we run even when the hour is darkest. Those are the actions of a winner win or lose the actual battle. I had in mind those people who would surrender instead of entering into what seems like a hopeless fight in their eyes. It is always better to fight and lose than to not fight at all. The Byzantines fought to the bitter end to save what they held dear and that was a noble thing. Better a noble defeat than humiliation and eventual extinction.

I dont think we are going to allow things to get that far in this case. We have the example of the Byzantines before us in the sense that they were too willing to trust the muslims and did not understand that their enemy and I for one will be damned before I allow our land to share the same fate. The most important thing the Byzantines failed to understand is that muslims are obligated to subject the world to islam and are permitted to use peace agreements to that end. They assumed that muslims were just like they were and that they really just wanted peace like everyone else. The only definition of "peace" that islam knows is a world wholly dominated by islam. They wont stop fighting for their version of peace.

I am in agreement with anyone who firmly supports fighting the threat in the same manner in which it comes at us. If we have someone resorting to violence then we should meet it militarily. The threat coming from the realm of ideas has to be just as firmly fought with superior ideas until we win that battle.

Mussolini said...

As a religion, Islam has been violent since its birth. It has been violent ever since. Backing up that violence is a written expectation that violence in the name of Allah paves the way to paradise.

That's what everyone has been saying, paraphrased. I think we all agree on that. Anyone who claims Islam is peace and thinks the Qu'ran can support peace is mistaken.

Heloise said: "Rather, I think, only by showing allah is not infallible can we be victorious in keeping our freedom,
our life, our liberty and pursuit of our happiness."

Yes, no, and perhaps. (laughs)

Yes: If we show Allah to be infallible, muslims have reason to question its doctrine. Problem: there have always been setbacks that appear to make Allah infallible (Arab-Israeli wars). But muslims regard those only as temporary setbacks. Hell, history is replete with setbacks for Islam. Just look at Tours, and Spain, and Italy and Sicily and Cyprus.... What would it take to make Allah infallible in the eyes of muslims that wouldn't be considered just a "setback?" I don't think there is such an event, because Allah is unseen and faith can make excuses.

No: Tied into the problem of the yes answer, showing Allah to be infallible via any number of setbacks, only serves to push the buttons of the muslims to try harder. Instead of making them question their docrine, they burn in resentment. Problem: Inciting muslims to try harder seems to be counter-productive, but we are in a war already and we're going to deliver many setbacks, I'm sure.

Perhaps: It is possible that we could deliver so many setbacks that Islam becomes demoralized. Problem: To capitalize on that demoralization, the only viable option to turn them from violence is to turn them from Islam. In other words, they need to be converted to a non-violent religion.

There is a further problem with the "perhaps." America, with its current hatred of anything Christian and the likelihood that the ACLU would sue if there was any organized missionary effort, cannot hope to accomplish what so obviously needs to be done to bring peace via religious change.

Mussolini said...

The Byzantines didn't have political correctness to deal with nor the ACLU to sue them over trying to win.

American Crusader said...

Baron Bodissey said...
Crusader -- concerning "expulsions": there remains the significant problem that any number of potential terrorists are American citizens, and many of those native-born.

Baron...of course you're right about native born American citizens...but we've had "revolutionaries" in the past who were American-born. This country has gone through many turbulent periods. If we can survive a Civil War, I think once we remove the foreign radical elements, we would significantly eliminate the threat of internal terrorist activities. Plus I was talking about using expulsion as an extreme measure if ever using it at all. I know of one case already were an American-born citizen has been classified as an enemy combatant and I think he still is -Jose Padilla- maybe you know more about his case.

Shellback said...

Sadly, to many Americans and Europeans living in a post-Christian era (or so it seems), identifying the issue as a showdown between Judeo-Christianity and a primitive desert religion may be merely an exercise in "my imaginary friend is greater than your imaginary friend".

This line of thought deserves greater development, but the hour is late.

But for now, a segment of the West may see it as no more than that. Until something occurs to change their focus.

Mussolini said...

Mussolini makes an odd proposal, too far-fetched to ever work:

*Withdraw all embassies from foreign lands, with the exception of a bare few countries... India, Israel, Britain....

Consider proposals to open an embassy only in the rarest of circumstances. Why? Embassies represent American "arrogance." Shut them down to get them out of the eyes of the world. We don't really need embassies, anyway. We have phones. This removes the visual representation of the red, white, and blue that stirs envy and resentment.

*Declare that American "Imperialism" is over by shutting off all foreign aid (exception: Israel and maybe Iraq if it stabilizes). This would serve to take away the money element that many foreigners despise and resent us for.

Refuse to mediate any disputes. Force the UN to basically admit that it is worthless because we all know they won't interfere in places involving genocide. This serves to remove American "influence" that is so commonly resented.

*We declare to the world that America is going to focus on itself and leave the rest of the world to govern themselves as they should. We overlook genocides. They didn't want us before, they don't want us now, either. This serves to cement the notion that America will not be "meddling" in other nations affairs and removes the resentment caused by such.

*We declare that any attack on America will be dealt with to the fullest capability of our army - not hand-wringing diplomats, and that includes nuking to glass any nation that supports/harbors whoever attacked us. This serves to warn Islam that America is not surrendering, just going over into that corner over there....

*As soon as the first towel-head attacks (as we all know they will), abolish both CAIR and the ACLU. Both organizations support Islamic terrorists. Respond to the attack with whatever means are necessary to obliterate the origin of the attack. This serves to show Islam that while it may look like we've retreated, striking at the US will be met with crushing force. Once they lose a country like Iran or Saudi Arabia, they might begin to look for another bogeyman - like the French.

End result? With the reduced awareness of the US in the world, and the demonstration that we will invade and conquer any country that launches an attack, Islamic violent tendencies will begin to look for something closer to vent their jihad on.

Know what happens when there's no enemy for Islam? They start killing themselves.

Better them than us.

It's a fantasy scenario that will never happen, but I believe it would work.

PD111 said...

An article by Laurence Auster is well worth reading.

The Search for Moderate Islam - posted in Jan 2005.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=16802&p=1

Now it is true that some muslims are peacable enough. Yet it has to borne in mind that some very peaceful muslims, to the utter surprise and shock of their friends and family, have become shaheeds. There is also demographics to consider. Muslim representatives will always use muslim numbers to extract further dhimmification.

There is no need to think of a "war of civilisatations". A separation is far better and humane then considering Three Conjecture scenarios, just so to prove that all cultures can live together. It is a recognition that all cultures cannot live under the tent of multiculturalism. It is a recognition that some cultures, islam in this case, is not yet ready to embrace plurality and tolerance.In the future that may come about, but in the meantime, the whole excercise is getting fraught with danger for all mankind.

Jason_Pappas said...

There are many good comments above; let me suggest a few:

Be honest – brutally honest. Peggy covered this but let me put it in my words. Call things as they are. We are civilization and we should boast of our aspirations and achievements. We are facing Islamic barbarians and we should make the appropriate moral judgments without hesitation. I trust I don’t have to explain this point in this venue. Nor do I have to contrast this with the moral equivalence, relativism, and multi-cultural nonsense.

Let’s appreciate two important points about being honest – its effect on us and its effect on them. Being honest will reaffirm our values, maintain our intellectual and moral clarity, and maintain morale. It’s the only way to live. That being said, there is also the instrumental effect on the enemy. Arab societies are very sensitive to humiliation and shame. During the 19th century, when the British weren’t shy about their cultural greatness, they helped to virtually eradicate slavery around the world. They shamed Arabs into changing. Muslims never developed Abolitionist Societies but they did capitulate and marginalize many aspects of their religion.

This first thing we need to do is stop the appeasement.

(1) Tell Egypt they create an atmosphere of hate that makes actions like 9/11 possible – so we won’t be giving them $2 billion a year anymore. They hate us and we aren’t fond of them either.

(2) Tell the Palestinians, that after teaching a generation to aspire to becoming suicide bombers they have descended into savagery so severe that they don’t deserve a state – certainly not a state next to such noble and civilized people as the Israelis. Perhaps in a generation or two they might learn how to become civilized – we’ll talk them.

(3) Saudi Arabia is the chief sponsor of world-wide terrorism (Iran’s a close second). We provide for Saudi Arabia’s defense; without us they wouldn’t exist. Tell Saudi Arabia they are on their own, they are our enemy, and we don’t care if oil-poor Egypt or Jordan (the latter believes they are the rightful protectors of Mecca) decide to invade. It’s not our problem.

(4) Stop giving Pakistan planes and weapons. They are not our friends. We have a common enemy in the jihadists – that should be enough motivation to work together to fight them. If it isn’t they are only pretending to help. Besides, having created the Taliban, they have to prove that they still aren’t the enemy.

That bold start would reverberate through out the Islamic world. We have to take this step by step. Fighting the intellectual war, maintaining a moral posture, and acting like we mean it – this would be a major change and it will have an impact. Then we take it from there.

Heloise said...

Bill,

The icons of islam, beside the koran, are the shrines in mecca of the black metorite and the magic well, zamzam, where believers go on pilgrimage. Their belief is that allah will always protect these shrines. Just today, a muslim said this on Jihad/DhimmiWatch.

If the icons are destroyed, then allah is not omniscient and islam has no god. The shock to the mind of the muslim would be so great as to render them inactice or at the least confused and extremely disillusioned, for what is there to fight for now?

JoeC said...

In all the comments below, not once did anyone bring up this fact; The Iranian president called for the total annihilation of Israel yesterday and any country that recognizes Israel.
I think the quote was: "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury. and then I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible

Where are the condemning statements from Islamic countries in response to Ahmadinejad's lunacy?
Where are the Muslims rising up in righteous anger over this madmans desire to kill more than 300 million people?
The solution is not the death of Muslims. Reaching out won't do it either.
Telling the truth has been tried for centuries, it doesn't work.

The only solution to the current problem is the death of Allah, the Qu'ran and Mohammed.

Shellback said...

If only Abraham hadn't decided to help the Lord along with that promise of a son...

Mussolini said...

Heloise, I couldn't agree with you more.

But during the demoralization of the entire Islamic world, the perfect time exists to move in and effect a meaningful change - conversion. I wouldn't care if thay all became hindus. Without something filling the vacuum, Islam will fill that void itself in a changed form.

Would we want to risk that the shame, embarassment, and humiliation would give us something even worse?

I don't bring this up often - I think the last time I did was in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks when the lefties were claiming we needed to listen and understand instead of rush to judgement - but now bears repeating.

First though, and without intent to insult the good intentions of those who yearn more to intellectual thought rather than bare-knuckle bloody fighting, I would like to point out that not a single war was won with platitudes. We can talk and chat and pontificate with what we feel are splendid ideas, but we won't impress Islam into peace with our sentiments.

Here's the issue. America is at war with terrorists. Supposedly this is something new, this bloody war against Islamic fascists. However, it is not new. America has fought a war against terror before, and it is coded in the song of our own US Marines.

Recall "the shores of Tripoli?" Yes, Tripoli, Libya. America fought the Barbary Wars when the nations of the world, including the naval power GREAT BRITAIN was paying the jizya to the Barbary Pirates for safe passage of their ships through the mediterranean.

We won that war, not with diplomats, not with promises, not with pontifications about tolerance and understanding. We won that war with bullets and blood. We beat the holy living hell out of them for four bloody years. The muslims knew they were going to lose and made a truce. But muslims use truces to regroup.

The war flared up again a few years later and we returned with force to put them down.

You can read a brief of that HERE.

Like Joec said, Islam wants to destroy Israel and America - under a mushroom cloud as soon as Iran develops the bomb. Don't believe the Iranians claiming they only want to build power plants. Look HERE.

Do we dare let a single Islamic state to develop nuclear weapons? If little muslim toddlers are strapping explosives on themselves for suicide attacks, then only a total imbecile would believe that the very first bomb made by Islam won't be used on either Israel or the US.

Maybe none of you put stock in Nostradamus. Didn't that beard predict what he saw as New York going up in flames? I don't put any stock in psychics, but the soincidence is chilling.

My only fear is that America, being all multi-cultural and politically correct, will talk themselves right up to the next tragedy.

Baron Bodissey said...

I just want you all to know that I'm reading all these comments -- it's great to hear all these different ideas from people who are all essentially on the same team. I'm going to gather the themes together with quotes from this thread and make another post out of it all as soon as I can.

In the meantime, keep 'em coming.

Jason_Pappas said...

I understand we all want to know what it will take to win. However, our fellow citizens don’t even know who the enemy is, what motivates the enemy, the broad support the enemy receives, etc. They certainly won’t understand the full battle plan if they don’t understand the depth of the problem. Many still think it’s a criminal problem.

The first order of business is waking-up our fellow citizens. I’m sure we’ve all had the experience of trying to explain that it’s not just a few deranged people that’s hijacked Islam. As long as they don't understand Islam, how could our fellow citizens possibly understand the stakes in this war? The battle won’t be lost over there – it will be lost over here.

Since Americans are extremely practical people, they will want to know what to do as soon as they hear about a problem. That’s why I suggest items that can be done immediately to change our posture and prepare for future actions.

Just this past July, after the London terrorist attacks, the leaders of the G8 countries, who were meeting in the UK, immediately pledged billions for the terrorists in Gaza and the coming Palestinian state. Where was the outrage? We just removed Saddam – who was sending thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers. Now we are going to fund the same kind of people on the order of billions. If a Democratic President did that, there would be screaming on every conservative venue. Hillary got hell just for “hanging” with Arafat’s wife as the PLO spewed hate. And don't even mention Karen Hughes to me. Could a Democrat have come up with a worse idea than to send someone to grovel for a crumb of affection? (OK, perhaps sending Jimmy Carter would be worse but that's holding the bar very low.)

That’s why I say we have to first stop the appeasement. Then we can proceed to the next step.

Papa Ray said...

We have this discussion at least once a week at the coffee shop.

There is never a satisfactory conclusion.

Some conclusions are eons long, others just a few years and a couple take a century at least.

But they all have one thing in common. Lots and lots of killing and dying.

Of course, there is always the one course of action that is left out of most discussions. No one wants to be the one to put it out on the table.

Because to do so would be to advocate surrender.

Yea, just everybody convert and pay taxes to them and hope that they don't kill us anyway.

That usually ends the discussion until another day. No one believes we will just surrender, but everyone knows that is what we will have to do if we decide not to fight with tooth and nail and the atom, if necessary.

I really believe that north of the mason dixon line and the west coast most of the liberals (a lot of the religious right) and even some moderates would go down without a fight, rather than kill, not just the male enemy but their women and children also.

Why can't we just kill the men? Because they know if they hid among the women and children we won't kill them.

Does anyone remember our Military saying we can't shell, bomb or destroy someplace in the previous world wars? You heard it in Vietnam and because of that we never could kill all of the VC.

We're not killing women and children (except by accident) in Iraq and because of that we're not killing all of the "insurgents".

We are fighting a war half assed and half heartedly.

And because of that we are losing more troops than we should or could.

Like it was said so well earlier in this thread. The enemy is going to have to kill many more thousands of Americans before the American public demands of our administration that our Military and Police deal out swift and deadly destruction.

Destruction to not only match our enemies destruction and killing, but to exceed it to the extent, that there will be no further reprisals and murders.

But in reality even that will only give us another few hundred years of respite. Then it will begin again.

Because Allah commands it.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

a4g said...

Why are African-Americans overpopulating prisons? Because of a poverty of pocketbook, or of culture?

If culture only, why does an increase in wealth dovetail so nicely with a decrease in incarceration?

The problem with untangling Islam is the old correlation/ causation one. I'm sure many of us have spent much time since 9/11 searching out the clues that would give "the answer"-- this very post is just that.

But I think treating Islam as an irresistible dark meme ignores the ample evidence that humans are not the infinitely immutable clay that Marx 'n' friends would have them be.

To blame Islam for its bloody borders while ignoring the track record of Europe, Asia seems a bit myopic. I suspect that, caught in the comfortable pillow of this unique moment in history, and the very real Pax Americana that has blanketed much of the world, we are merely confronting in violent Islam the natural state of man-- and a red-shifted rainbow it is.

I'm not sure many destinations in history would appeal to our current sensibilities. This is not to deny that Islam is inherently more bellicose than other major faiths. But if Man is made by God in His image, there are limits to human mutability.

If Islam is inherently bloodthirsty, and Christianity not-- so what? Whether the distributions of killers and lovers among adherents are titled "devout" or "lax" matters little, because the distribution curves will remain largely the same despite the titles.

So the answer to Islam is not peculiar to Islam-- and probably not particularly profound.

What has worked in the past to allow man to crawl out of his filthy hole for a few fleeting moments? We are fortunately living in the greatest example in history.

Work to create environments where people can take charge of their own lives. Free markets. Political participation.

Will this "reform" Islam? Or will it merely precipitate the conversion of quite a few muslims to the more sanity-friendly Christianity?

Either way, I think it doesn't matter. For the outcome will be the same.

a4g said...

A short follow up for clarity:

I'm not denying the concept of evil, which Islam very well may be, but rather noting that a yearning for good is an inherent part of every human heart, and can guide the willing self. Tap into that yearning and you transform animals into men.

Mussolini said...

Baron mentioned somewhere in the post that Bush labeled this "Islamofascism."

Which, of course, it is not.

We label any government that is detestable as "fascist." We seem to also use it to mean nazi.

Fascism isn't bad at all, but three leaders used it in WW2 and sort of stained the term. Fascism is simply a government with decision-making power residing in one man. Mussolini pioneered fascism in the 20's and his government moved from left to a fairly balanced center government(soft socialist). Hitler and Stalin were hard left and harder left, in that order (hard socialist and murdering communist).

The point... there's not too many "fascist" Islamic states. Just the opposite. Syria is fascist, but Assad governs over a nominally secular state with the fundamentalists suppressed. Egypt, the same way. Libya, the same way. Jordan, the same way.

Saudi is a kingdom, but otherwise close to fascism. Iran is a theocracy.

For there to be "Islamofascism" facing us, we would have to have the likes of a fundamental Iran ruled by a dictator like old Hafez Assad, or Saddam, but in a religious sense. That would then be their caliph they've been looking for.

I'm the guiltiest for using the wrong term: Islamofascism. I should know better, seeing that I am partial to Mussolini and his brand of fascism.

A4g, we compete with the madrassahs. Until we can take away the shrill voice of "die for Allah!" that gets pounded into every muslim child's head, we won't be able to tap into the good in their hearts - but I believe we can. It has to be part of the strategy or we'll end up having to kill them all, and I think that would be morally unconscionable.

JoeC said...

I am a cancer survivor. When the diagnosis was conveyed to me, I was given 3 choices.
1. Do nothing
2. Surgery
3. Surgery, chemotherapy, radiation.

I chose #3. All other choices would have lead to my death.

Islam is exactly like a cancer.
It starts small, metastasizes to other parts of the body and takes over.

It grows faster than other parts of the host, due to the fact that it monopolizes blood supply.
Hmmmm. Oil, anyone?

The host has used surgery to control the spread of this cancer for centuries, never totally obliterating the disease, only containing it within "acceptable parameters."

There are millions of people who ignore the signs of cancer when they appear, to the detriment of their own health.
Denial is much easier than facing hard facts.

We are now at the point where the cancer that is islam has metastasized through-out the host.

It seems that choice #1 is the most popular. What a shame.

I think Dymphna says it very well, in the header of this site:

"We are in a new phase of a very old war."

In a previous comment here, I stated that one of the cures was the death of Allah, Mohammed, and the Qu'ran.

I fear our PC world will never see the truth in this simple fact.

Numerous people state that killing all the muslims is unacceptable. Why? They will obliterate us the first chance they have. Even now, they kill us as often as possible.

In a fight for survival, surviving is the goal. Anything less is denial.

I have several muslim friends. They are good and decent people.
They also believe that islam is the ONLY way to heaven.
I have no doubt that if they were called upon by "Allah" to kill me, they would.

Russ said...

What is a Christian to do to the adherents of an evil religion that openly espouses butchery, treachery, and eternal brutality towards anyone not them?

Forgive them, of course.

Mussolini said...

"Numerous people state that killing all the muslims is unacceptable. Why? They will obliterate us the first chance they have. Even now, they kill us as often as possible.

In a fight for survival, surviving is the goal. Anything less is denial.


With room for choices - at least 2 potentially valid ones - we needn't limit ourselves with having to shoot children in the head. Who would want to that's not a muslim?

Forgive as a Christian? Sure, AFTER we beat them.
I most certainly agree with that last part. We cannot platitude our way to peace with a religion that demands we convert or be killed and is funded with our own money.

There is no room for platitudes.

But you ask a question: Why can we not kill them all (as in that it might be our only option)? We can kill them all, without a doubt. But as rational thinkers, we not only realize the grim option of total genocide, but also that other options might exist.

I might be one of the more bloodthirsty posters here, but even I have to recognize that there a a couple methods by which we might win this age-old battle.

1: Kill every single muslim in the world; men, women and children. We'd never have an islamic-terrorist problem ever again.
2:Change their religion to promote coexistence. This is the longest process that would allow us all to bear each other living on the same planet and it doesn't involve killing children. It is also the hardest to do.
3:Spread democracy. This would give the moderates a voice to not only integrate into society a little easier and empower the individual to make a difference, but also provide a haven for those moderate imams to make the #2 option possible. This would be almost as bloody as option #1 because there is no room for democracy in Islam and this would result in endless bloody civil wars where muslims slaughter each other from here to eternity. Maybe this is good. Keeps them from killing us and naturally reduces their numbers... hmmm doesn't sound too bad....
4:Appease. Basically give in to all the demands of bin Laden, because there is no compromise. It would just be, "okay, we Americans will all become muslims and live under sharia law. Just stop killing us please." No more terrorism, but all the gays, lesbians, hollywood actresses, female runway models, and female political activists would all be put to death by stoning. Oh, and female singers, too. At least we would be rid of Streisand....
5: Ignore it all as a criminal matter and go on talking about how everything is Bush's fault. The ACLU, CAIR, and the American Left all prefer this option. On the anniversary of 9/11, of all the left wing sites, those 2 organizations included, NO mention was made of the horror that took place. No pictures of the planes hitting the towers.

Mussolini said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Papa Ray said...

"Shoot children in the head".

There are very few Americans that would be able to do that.

But there are many that will drop a bomb from 30,000 feet and kill everything alive within a ten mile radius.

They wouldn't do it on their own, but given an order by the President of the United States that came through the proper channels, they would release that bomb.

There are those in Israel that will do the same.

And if we wait long enough, I am sure that there are many in Iran that will be more than happy to kill thousands with just the press of a button.

In the battles being waged now in Iraq, American air power is used only after much verification and going through many layers of command.

In most cases this allows the bad guys to get away.

Ask any Marine or Soldier, I did and they are not happy with it.

They can't use tanks to blow up buildings, they can't use their arty or other means without verification and the command shuffle and wait.

They have to break down a door and clear, which as you know results in our guys getting killed.

They are fighting with even more strigent rules than I did thirty some odd years ago and I can tell you those rules got a lot of my friends killed and a lot of the enemy got away to kill again another day.

I'm still pissed off about how we were not allowed to win. In Hue, the rules were did away with most of the time. I wasn't there but two of my best buds were and one didn't come home. In Hue, it was a face to face shoot out with no holds barred. The result is now history.

As several have said, we are going to be defeated by our own selves.

Right today, we can't even keep people out of this country, let alone find and either arrest or deport them.

Will that be changed when we find out that there are thousands of the enemy already HERE and they start killing us by the thousands?

I doubt it and I think we owe our children and grandchildren our best efforts. And if our best efforts means killing thousands of innocents to protect them,

Then thats what we will have to do.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

PD111 said...

joec:

Your comparison of islam to cancer, set me off in a flight of whimsical thought, yet again.

Over the years islam has been a compared to a virus, cancer, a pandemic. In some ways yes. However, such diseases are unthinking, they are bacteria, virus or the body attacking itself. None of these are able to plan and think. Islam OTH is carried forward by human beings capable of planning, thinking, and organising a plan of devouring infidel cultures, all in keeping with explicitly written down instructions in the jihad manual. Islam in my view, is more like a predator- a tiger or lion, and one that operates in the social domain. Islam is really a very good predator in the cultural domain, in and off human cultures. There is no other predator in the cultural domain except islam.

If we regard islam as a top predator and the rest as prey, it is easy to see why no other culture, whether Hindu, Buddhist or Christian has been able to withstand islam. No matter if a deer resists or not, it has no chance against a tiger or lion. The deer can preach the benefits of vegetarianism to the tiger as much as it likes (as our politicians are doing right now), the tiger will merely smile and then proceed to devour the deer.

Here again is an oft quoted view of Churchill on islam.

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

—Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

Note in particular the last sentence. Christianity withstod islam not because of its martial strength but because it was fortunate enough to invent modern science and its handmaiden - technology.

So how do we tackle a predator such a tiger or a pride of lions prowling about our towns and cities. There are two humane options in current use.

1. Dart and confine them to a zoo (prison), where they are unable to harm humans.

2. Sedate and then ship back to the wilds i.e. to their native habitat.

We are at the moment employing option 1 i.e. after the predator has killed a human or several humans.

Islam is a code of life that was codified by Mohammed for a tribal and nomadic culture. If some humans persist to live by this code in civilised and settled societies such as ours, then a severe clash is inevitable, as we are finding out. If in addition the tribal culture is predatory, then we have virtually no options left except 2. The lion or the tiger will not lie down with the lamb.

I believe that option 2 is far better. We are happy and the predator is also more content in his native habitat.